Beautiful or Selfish? Bringing terminally ill fetuses to term

This video came to me in an email, and despite the comments of 'beautiful,' I actually have very mixed feelings about this. While I am against abortion in all cases, I make exception in the cases of the mother's life, or if the child is diagnosed with a truly incurable, terminal, and painful illness (see c-ral.org).

While I applaud the parents for making a courageous choice in bringing this Trisomy-13 (Patau syndrome) child to birth, when I see them agonizing over his labored breathing and many lapses into near-death, saying "just let go Thomas," I kept wondering, were you really doing this for him or for yourselves? Were you slavishly following a pro-life doctrine when perhaps true compassion would have, in this case, gone for the abortion?

Was giving yourselves a chance to love him really worth his suffering? The child may have received love for his five days here, but I just wonder if these parents considered the pain he would suffer as well. I guess that, if you could not really know the severity of the child's case, you would be justified in bringing the child to term.

The funeral singing almost seemed maudlin, like some crass pro-life political rally. I'm sure it was much more than that to the participants, and to many Christians, but I am no liberal, and this very sad situation still sort of struck me as something other than awesome. I know such an opinion will not be Christianly Correct.

36 Responses

While, one could argue with their decision, I'm not sure how you can call it selfish. If the child was going to die all along, how is it selfish to bring the child to term? The end result is still the same, the child dies. But there is always the chance of a misdiagnosis or even some "miraculous" cure. Medical science is constantly advancing allowing more and more babies, who previously had no chance, the chance at an extended life. I never like the idea of someone else making a judgment that another's life would not be worth living any longer. I've never been in the position of the baby or of the terminally ill elderly person. I would prefer that we always err on the side of life. Why take a life when it is unneeded? Because we think that they would be better of dead? I'm not comfortable with that way of thinking.

If, as even daniel admits, this baby was doomed to a painful and pointless death within days of birth, I do think it was selfish of the parents to insist on bringing him to term. For one thing, the resources and dollars spent could have been used on other children or anywhere for that matter. This, I call, erring on the side of life. For another thing, why put this helpless infant through such an ordeal? Are the beliefs of the parents and the anti-abortion movement so much more important? Why subject him to this pointless suffering? It also seems suspicious that they felt the need to record and publish this ordeal. Was there a political point being made? Just because one claims a Christian outlook doesn't make one automatically right. Even within that worldview there is room for doubt and self-criticism and humility. That's one thing that constantly grates on me about evangelical and conservative Christians: they are always just right and that's the end of it. God is on their side, period. And everyone else is just lost, or wicked, or perverse. It's impossible to relate just how much damage this has done to their "cause."

"If the child was going to die all along, how is it selfish to bring the child to term?" Suffering…

I kept wondering, were you really doing this for him or for yourselves? Were you slavishly following a pro-life doctrine when perhaps true compassion would have, in this case, gone for the abortion?Was giving yourselves a chance to love him really worth his suffering? The child may have received love for his five days here, but I just wonder if these parents considered the pain he would suffer as well. I guess that, if you could not really know the severity of the child's case, you would be justified in bringing the child to term. The funeral singing almost seemed maudlin, like some crass pro-life political rally.

Seems like Daniel actually thought about this before he wrote the post. There's no right answer to this dilemma but Daniel raises a good question, were the parents thinking of themselves or the well being of the child? Louis thinks it's the former and I'm hesitantly inclined to agree, though I am not in their shoes.

Imagine if you were told that your child had terminal cancer that gave them a limited, but unknown expected lifespan. They might live for a few weeks, months or maybe even a few years. What is certain was that there might be a bit of suffering at the end, as there is for any death, but of course there are narcotics to relieve suffering. Would you choose to refuse the road ahead and ask that the doctor euthanize your child right there and then so that you need not take the painful journey and they need not possibly suffer at the end? Of course not. It is no different when an unborn is diagnosed with a life limiting condition. If you believe that life begins at conception it is easy to understand. The mother expecting such a baby can enjoy every day in which her baby kicks and flutters before birth. No family who has chosen life in such a circumstance has ever regretted a minute of the time they had. Some of these children are actually mildly afflicted and can live for many years. They do have serious disabilities but if you take a good look at the families who are blessed with children living with conditions such as trisomy 13/18 you would find incredible joy as the families delight in every day of their child's life, knowing all too well that it will not last. Is it fair to the baby? The life of that little one has a tremendous impact on the family and friends, regardless of life span. These special babies are an incredible gift, despite the tears and challenges that come with them. Is it fair to deny that baby the purpose of his/her existence? I agree that the video is difficult to watch and I have a tough time calling it beautiful. Watch the 99 Balloons Video on you tube and you will get a better idea of the beauty and meaning of the lives of these special lives.

"Would you choose to refuse the road ahead and ask that the doctor euthanize your child right there and then so that you need not take the painful journey and they need not possibly suffer at the end? Of course not." I wouldn't be worried about my suffering. I'd be more concerned with the baby's suffering. If the baby was going to suffer horribly for the time it was alive, and if I was the parent, I'd consider abortion to spare the baby that pain and suffering. I'd lean more toward selfish than beautiful here.

Mary raises important points. 1. If the diagnosis is tentative, and the *possibility* exists for a longer life managed with medicines, is killing the child really in your interest or the child's? 2. Which is worse – to have never lived, or to have lived with pain? 3. If your young child suddenly becomes terminally ill, do you euthanize them? Essentially, this is what abortion is, whether the child is one day old or in the last trimester.

Pivoting already? That didn't take long. Were I in that baby's position, I'd rather my parents had an abortion than to subject me to that 5 day ordeal. The quality of life is just too poor. It seems the parents got more joy out of the 5 days than the baby did.

Louis: I do think it was selfish of the parents to insist on bringing him to term. For one thing, the resources and dollars spent could have been used on other children or anywhere for that matter. Based on what? Would those parents decide to donate all the money they would have spent on the five days they got with their child to some other more "worthy" child? For those parents that was the most worthy cause. A child's life is not an issue with which to start argue financial concerns.Louis: That's one thing that constantly grates on me about evangelical and conservative Christians: they are always just right and that's the end of it. So let me get this straight. You definitively call parents of a terminally ill child "selfish." I say that I would err on the side of life and this is cause for a rant on the arrogance of the evangelical Christian perspective. Read what I wrote and not what you thought I was saying, I never made any hard claims, merely that I would err on life and I would not call a couple making a very difficult decision "selfish." How is that an example of evangelical Christians claiming to be "automatically right."Cin: The quality of life is just too poor. It seems the parents got more joy out of the 5 days than the baby did. It's funny that "Daniel thought" when he wrote something you didn't disagree with. Didn't Louis mention something about Christians arrogantly considering they are always right? ;) For starters to be perfectly blunt, who are you (or I) to determine for this family that the quality of life for the baby is too poor? Do you know that for certain? Perhaps the parents did get more joy out of the 5 days than the baby did, but we don't know that for certain. But none of us, that I know of, has ever been in that situation, on either side of it, so to me it is hard to call someone "selfish" or wrong for choosing to let their baby live as long as possible deriving what ever joy and meaning they can from those few short days. The parents are the ones dealing with the issues and the consequences, how can we call them selfish for allowing their child to live as long as possible?

"For starters to be perfectly blunt, who are you (or I) to determine for this family that the quality of life for the baby is too poor?"

Even if I wanted to determine for this family the that the quality of life for their baby is too poor, by what means would I have at my disposal to do so? I have no ties to these people so how would I determine anything for this family AT ALL much less if their baby's quality of life is too poor. You're pulling this out of your butt.

Do you know that for certain?

After watching the video, 5 days where every breath was a painful ordeal for the baby and seeing how the baby's organs lungs, heart, kidney's etc. fail; I know for certain that, "Were I in that baby's position, I'd rather my parents had an abortion than to subject me to that 5 day ordeal. The quality of life is just too poor."

"The parents are the ones dealing with the issues and the consequences, how can we call them selfish for allowing their child to live as long as possible?"

Reprint of Cineaste's words three posts up: There's no right answer to this dilemma but Daniel raises a good question, were the parents thinking of themselves or the well being of the child? Louis thinks it's the former and I'm hesitantly inclined to agree, though I am not in their shoes.

Perhaps the parents did get more joy out of the 5 days than the baby did, but we don't know that for certain.

Ummmm, judging by the wheezing and the organ failures of the baby it's safe to say that I'm certain that the parents got more joy from those 5 days than their baby.

The Title of this post is " Beautiful or selfish?" I would rather like to call the story shared "Heartbreaking". His parents were hopeful for every moment they could know him. What parent isn't hopeful to know their child? And as for the babies suffering….. All he knew in his life was love. He didnt know any different than the five days he had wrapped in the arms of his parents love. He didnt know life any different from a healthy or sick body. This is all he knew. He didnt "know" if he was suffering. He was fighting to survive. His parents were fighting for him to survive and letting the natural course of things, the natural course of life, proceed. 100 years ago there were no genetic testing. There were no abortions for chromosome issues. In many, many other countries, women do not get prenatal testing for genetic issues. What this family did is what millions of families have done through the centuries and around the globe when put into the same situation. They loved their child. They held their child. They prayed and hoped for their childs survival, and when they saw his struggle was too much, they encouraged him to let go. They took a moment to get to know their child and hoped that in that moment that he would know them- would know a life of love. And I think that he did. PS Cineaste, I thought it was very interesting that you ended your last post with " ummm, judging by the wheezing and organ failures of the baby…." Judging indeed.

"PS Cineaste, I thought it was very interesting that you ended your last post with " ummm, judging by the wheezing and organ failures of the baby…." Judging indeed." Indeed, I judged that baby to be in distress. Wheezing and organ failure should be an obvious indication of that, right?

What I come away from this unfortunate discussion is that there are plenty of Christians who don't consider what that poor kid went through as suffering, or who think it's more important for his parents to gratify their need to bring him to term than to spare him his ordeal. Oh, and that the political battle is more important than the suffering of a helpless innocent. I will never understand this kind of thinking. And I don't think I want to. Make of that what you will.

Louis, you present your conclusion as: 1) plenty of Christians who don't consider what that poor kid went through as suffering, or 2) who think it's more important for his parents to gratify their need to bring him to term than to spare him his ordeal. and 3) that the political battle is more important than the suffering of a helpless innocent. You have indicated elsewhere that you are versed in philosophical forms. Would you say that its fair that you've made an error of the Excluded Third type? "I will never understand this kind of thinking. And I don't think I want to. Make of that what you will." You've actually taken quite a leap to repaint things that were said in a false way to support your original claim. You and Cineaste are making ontological and teleological assumptions and presenting them as fact. If hedonism is True (the underlying basis of your argument, I assume you know this at least at some level), then you'll have to do some supporting and convincing. A great many here think that this is not the case. Aaron said all I would want to contribute to this.

"A great many here think that this is not the case." That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. 1. It's not surprising since this site's tagline is "Christian commentary on religion, politics, world views, books, church life, and culture." 2. Majority opinion has no connection to the truth value of a statement. If a majority of people believed that President Obama was born in Kenya, that wouldn't make them right.

Louis: Who said this was about a political issue? When did I once raise the Pro-life political banner? This is not slavishly following a political idea, but maintaining a moral principle, even when it seems difficult for others. You can't lecture about someone else being arrogant all the while calling a couple you do not know "selfish" for allowing their baby to live as long as he possibly could. Cin: If your argument amounts to only saying that you believe you would want to be aborted if you were somehow the baby, then that is your opinion and I will not attempt to change you of that. However, I do not think we can say for certain that the baby's quality of life was poor. Was he suffering and in pain? Obviously, but it is my contention that suffering and pain are part of life, as is love, which this baby received. When we start saying that someone's suffering means it would be better for them to be dead, it is a troubling ideal. It have never, I repeat never, gone well when certain segments in society determined that the quality of life of other segments was not good enough to live a quality life, no matter the distance. Cin, let me be clear, I'm not saying that you personally desire to tell someone when they must abort their child or euthanize their parent, my argument is that many who make those arguments use the same rationale – quality of life (and then also Louis' use of finite resources being devoted to a terminal case). "Quality of life" is an issue that is extremely, if not impossible, to tell from the outside. The baby was struggling physically, but that is not all their is to life. Even materialist understand that humans are also emotional beings. Most people recognize a spiritual component to our lives as well. All I have said from the beginning is that I am uncomfortable with judging another's quality of life, as well as the conclusion that these parents are selfish because they allowed their baby to live as long as possible.

Look at the title of this thread: "Beautiful or selfish?" We were invited to opine, to judge. I came down on the side of compassion for the innocent, helpless baby. What a monster I am! Mea maxima culpa!

/ignore James"Was he suffering and in pain? Obviously, but it is my contention that suffering and pain are part of life, as is love, which this baby received." You know, I'm actually defending the feelings Daniel articulated in his initial post and he's nowhere to be found now. Regardless, that Daniel of all people, would feel that way about this, that it's not a clear cut case, should say something. The thing is, I think he's going to change his tune now and not defend his post because "liberals" agree with it. He can't be seen agreeing with liberals. The horror! The shame! Aaron, obviously the baby had a very rough time of it. It turned blue from not being able to breath, it's organs failed (that can't feel good). It was actually hard for me to watch that video because the baby was suffering so much. It's also my contention that suffering and pain are part of life but I just don't think it was right to put the baby through 5 days of hell because the parents wanted to parent so badly. I guess I felt too much compassion for the baby and I thought it's suffering was needless.""Quality of life" is an issue that is extremely, if not impossible, to tell from the outside. The baby was struggling physically, but that is not all their is to life. Even materialist understand that humans are also emotional beings. Most people recognize a spiritual component to our lives as well." The baby was terminally ill, doomed to a painful withering death. You say there is more to life and I agree. If I was terminally ill, I'd like to die with dignity. I would not want to be kept alive, in pain, suffering horribly, because someone else couldn't let go. I really think the parents could have spared the baby the horror of that last 5 days and let go. I know you hate it when I bring this up, but this too reminds me of the whole Terri Shaivo debacle. Anyway, from your point of view you can probably tell yourself that the baby actually lived 9 months and not 5 days since it's a person starting at conception.

Wow! I point out poor argumentation and self defeating points and get put on ignore?!?!one!!111!!1 (man, I didn't even know this place had an ignore function, I've been missing out!) Mea maxima culpa! Is it me, or is so much discussion that goes on here something like this:A "I think X!" B "I disagree wtih X with these reasons, and instead support Y with these reasons" A "Everything I say is of utmost value and I shouldn't have to present cohesive thought and you're a jerk!" B "Thanks." It is refreshing to see some consistency of worldview at least. Pleasure > Life in plain black and white.

"Wow! I point out poor argumentation and self defeating points.." The thing is, your not supposed to point out poor argumentation and self defeating points of your own, you're supposed to do that for me, right? I get the feeling your a very young guy and you have a lot to learn. I'm willing to teach you if you'd like.

Louis: We were invited to opine, to judge. I came down on the side of compassion for the innocent, helpless baby. What a monster I am! Sure, but that invitation does not mean that you do not have to defend your opinion on the issue. That invitation does not mean I cannot challenge your position. If I was being argumentative here I could quote a comment of yours about "Poor Aaron…" but I won't. ;) My point to you is that you cannot lecture Christians on being arrogant on their pronouncements of others' points of view, when you have no problem calling someone else "selfish" for their personal choice for their family. We all make judgments, you just seem to want to be able to do it without extending the same freedom to Christians. Since you raised the point "innocent, helpless baby" … what if the baby was healthy and the question about his life was brought up 5 days before his birth instead of after? Sorry, but it has to be asked. What makes this innocent baby worth standing up over and condemning his parents as "selfish," but it is wrong of me to judge couples or women as "selfish" when they abort their unborn child because it would make their life "harder."Cin: The thing is, I think he's going to change his tune now and not defend his post because "liberals" agree with it. Then you don't know Daniel, you know the caricature of Daniel. He and I have disagree here over many issues where he takes the more "liberal" position: illegal immigration, abortion, Buddhism within Christianity, etc.I guess I felt too much compassion for the baby and I thought it's suffering was needless. I would never say that and I hope I didn't come across as saying that. We all have a natural compassion for helpless children. It has taken me a long time to write this comment because my four year old wanted to sit in my lap because his ear hurts. I understand the desire to eliminate or at least reduce the suffering of the child. I didn't watch the video. I probably can't watch the video. Since becoming a dad, I'm very emotional when it comes to stuff with kids. This is a principle of mine (and it seems of yours on the opposite side), I do not see ending life as an option for reducing or ending suffering. It is the final "solution." I would rather live life as long as possible and die whenever that naturally comes. As a parent, I also find it extremely difficult to condemn a couple that wanted to see and hold their child as long as possible. As has already been said, that child was passionately loved for 5 days. That is part of life beyond the physical. I cannot condemn a parent for wanting to show their child love as long as possible. As a parent, I cannot and will not condemn them as selfish for that desire.

>> CIN: The thing is, I think he's going to change his tune now and not defend his post because "liberals" agree with it. Actually, I was and am on the fence on this one. I am troubled by the difficulty of this decision, and I sort of lean towards the liberal side on this, as I do on abortion issues in general – I mean, liberal compared to the far right position, not liberal in the 'unrestricted abortion' sense. >> AARON: I understand the desire to eliminate or at least reduce the suffering of the child. I think the dilemma is – do we kill someone to eliminate their suffering when they are unable to make this decision for themselves? And if their chances for a meaningful, long life are present *despite* suffering, do we give them the chance? These are not easy questions, which is why I think that the abortion of terminally ill fetuses should be left up to the parents. This does not include, however, Down Syndrome kids, for example, because socio-economic suffering is not enough reason to kill someone. As the infamous pro-life commercial showing an unborn child who became President Obama showed, often, our greatest achievers came into the world in lowly conditions.

Aaron, here are our stances on this issue… Cineaste: "I just don't think it was right to put the baby through 5 days of hell because the parents wanted to parent so badly. I guess I felt too much compassion for the baby and I thought it's suffering was needless." Aaron: "I do not see ending life as an option for reducing or ending suffering. It is the final "solution." I would rather live life as long as possible and die whenever that naturally comes." Knowing this, it's my contention that parents in this situation should have the choice of how they should to proceed. Is it your contention that they should not have had this choice? Do you contend that the government should be able to step in and tell the parents that they DO NOT have the choice of aborting, and thus in my opinion sparing the child great suffering where every wheezing breath is a painful ordeal and catastrophic organ failure is assured within a week?

Cin, I have, and will continue to request that you engage in conversation. Your pattern has indicated that you will not. If you have something to add, please add it. If you see error, then please point it out. That's not something I run from. If we were talking, I'd accuse you of stalling. As it is, this seems to be obfiscution. If it makes you feel better to make assumptions about my age, education, willingness, or ability to learn. So be it. That reflects on you. "often, our greatest achievers came into the world in lowly conditions." My favorite story of this type is Ludwig von Beethoven.

"If you have something to add, please add it. If you see error, then please point it out." OK. To surmise, you said, "A great many here think that this is not the case." I pointed out that regardless of whatever you may think of Louis' position (hedonist, depraved, selfish, etc), that whatever number of people agree with you is irrelevant to the discussion. 1. This is a conservative blog so it's not surprising "many here think this is not the case." 2. Majority opinion has no connection to the truth value of a statement. If a majority of people believed that President Obama was born in Kenya, that wouldn't make them right. Your reply to my 2 points was gibberish to me. I still have no idea what you are trying to ask. Can someone else interpret what you are arguing against the 2 points I raised?

Aaron wrote:My point to you is that you cannot lecture Christians on being arrogant on their pronouncements of others' points of view, when you have no problem calling someone else "selfish" for their personal choice for their family. We all make judgments, you just seem to want to be able to do it without extending the same freedom to Christians. Louis wrote: That's one thing that constantly grates on me about evangelical and conservative Christians: they are always just right and that's the end of it. God is on their side, period. And everyone else is just lost, or wicked, or perverse. Aaron seems to think I am attacking or criticizing all Christians; he further seems to think he gets to speak for all Christians. I specifically addressed evangelical and fundamentalist xians, a subset within the far larger community. I don't presume to speak for them all, nor do I criticize them all (nor do I "lecture," something his group exceeds in doing). And they aren't something monolithic – there are subsets with which I agree as a matter of fact (although evangel/fundies love to dismiss them with contempt). It's also fair to say that this post was merely a smokescreen for the abortion debate. It has been demonstrated to me that debating abortion with evangel/fundies is a pointless activity, and I refuse to engage in it. This is illustrated here by James' ludicrous and loaded reduction of my position to "pleasure>life." This is just plain stupid and, for someone who claims philosophical sophistication, lacking in intellectual integrity. Enough.

>> CIN: Knowing this, it's my contention that parents in this situation should have the choice of how they should to proceed. Does this mean that if they found out their child's condition after birth, you would allow the choice of infanticide legally? I think that's gonna be one of Aaron's points. Killing after and before are little different.

>> CIN: Majority opinion has no connection to the truth value of a statement. If a majority of people believed that President Obama was born in Kenya, that wouldn't make them right. does this apply to science and scientists as well? Like, you know, global warming?

"Does this mean that if they found out their child's condition after birth, you would allow the choice of infanticide legally?" No. You can't unring a bell. The choice I'm speaking of is abortion. Using your website: "I make exception in the cases of the mother's life, or if the child is diagnosed with a truly incurable, terminal, and painful illness." Clearly, the latter applies to this case."does this apply to science and scientists as well? Like, you know, global warming?" No. Science deals with facts. Global warming deniers, birthers, creationists, etc. deal with opinion, misinformation and ignorance. For a scientist to show that the majority of other scientists are mistaken he must provide evidence and demonstrate via experiment. If he /she can prove the majority wrong, then they receive science's highest award, the Nobel Prize, for their achievement.

>> CIN: No. You can't unring a bell. The choice I'm speaking of is abortion. That's not an answer. I say the bell rung a lot earlier, and abortion is trying to unring it. We won't agree, but I think the point is valid – complaining about infanticide while allowing for late term abortion, esp. in this case, is pretty much speaking out of both sides of your philosophy. >> CIN: "I make exception in the cases of the mother's life, or if the child is diagnosed with a truly incurable, terminal, and painful illness." Clearly, the latter applies to this case. I get your point, but I didn't say it was right. I just said that I would allow the parents to decide in this difficult case. I still would disallow abortion otherwise. I am being consistent in thinking both abortion and infanticide are wrong, unlike your position, which seems inconsistent. >> CIN: No. Science deals with facts. Global warming deniers, Not really. Science deals with DATA – facts are for people who think that they understand the data to mean something. With the politicization of science, and the obvious political bias of such organizations as the IPCC and the APA, in many of these cases, it's really just a hegemonic orthodoxy we are facing. That applies, in my mind, to global warming, evolution, and homosexuality. These are supported more by politics than 'facts.' Truthers, birthers, and Fox-haters, though, are nutbags ;)

stinker likes to make the charge that there is some newfound "politicization" of science, particularly when he disagrees, for political reasons, with science's current findings. Maybe it would be better to admit that science has always been influenced by politics and let it go at that. As Aristotle pointed out, mankind is a political animal, and we ignore that at our peril.

Daniel: "I make exception in the cases of the mother's life, or if the child is diagnosed with a truly incurable, terminal, and painful illness." If you equate abortion with infanticide in this case, then you are making an exception for infanticide, i.e. in this case, infanticide is allowable according to you."I am being consistent in thinking both abortion and infanticide are wrong…" Apparently, infanticide is wrong but not always. As far as science, Louis is correct. Alright Seeker, I've humored you enough. Conversation over.

>> CIN: Alright Seeker, I've humored you enough. Conversation over. Yes, well, you've defended your position by being silent about it, while attacking mine. Thank you for condescending, though. >> CIN: Apparently, infanticide is wrong but not always. Yes, my position is not a black and white one like your straw man would like it to be, but I do think mine is consistent. I acknowledge that in extreme cases, we must allow the tough decisions to be made by the parties involved. Like triage, the reality of life sometimes demands it. But that does not make, for instance, delaying treatment to the nearly dead criminal or negligent in that situation. Nor does it make allowing people to die ethically and morally OK in normal situations. To me, that seems to be YOUR position – that killing the unborn is OK. When I allow for the abortion of a terminal fetus, I am not saying that it is OK. But perhaps you are right. To be consistent, perhaps I should disallow abortion even in that case. However, for YOU, there seems to be no problem with killing late term fetuses, yet somehow you find it not ok to kill children under a year old. I think that is inconsistent.